Michael is a recently lapsed Jehovah’s Witness living in my block of flats at the end of the corridor. Since he split from his wife of five years, he’s been dabbling in Anglicanism which, from his description, sounds less like a faith than a hobby. He tried Catholicism first, but found the hymns grim and the sermons hard on his knees.
Now, as before, Michael is an affable guy, though he is still affable a little too frequently.
So, there’s the knock at my door on a Saturday afternoon. Luckily, Anglicanism isn’t the only new thing Michael is trying; he has, in each hand, a cold beer. The kind of cold that sticks to the palms of your hands. If only he’d thought of this technique when he was trying to covertly slip Watchtower magazines on to my coffee table.
In fold-out chairs, our feet up on the balcony rail, I feel the deep, dull satisfaction of heterosexual male bonding. Tedious, yes. But comforting too.
Somehow we land on that old conversation about the commercialisation of Christmas.
“Are you trying to save me again, Mike?”
“I’m not! It’s just ... since when is it all about the gifts?”
Feeling the yawn coming on, I suggest that it might have started with frankincense, myrrh and gold.
“Surely the three kings could’ve just given Baby Jesus a nice homemade Christmas card,” I say.
Michael laughs and I feel very hip and edgy.
“If Jesus were around today,” I continue, “do you think he’d wear Crocs? They are, after all, holey.”
Michael stares me down and I know that I’ve crossed the line by suggesting that the Son of God would wear plastic shoes.
Then he mumbles: “There’s nobody more religious than an atheist.”
He has a point. And we’re only getting more religious.
It’s been a good year for the Smartypants Squad. With Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great, we have the kinds of books we can tuck under our arms, as snug and as obvious as Bibles while we wander about airports looking for converts. This past year, I’ve even found a couple. Now, I’m busying myself by putting the X back into Xmas.
But I’ve hit a couple of wobbles. Two things are testing my faith.
One, there’s something quite ugly about the new atheism. It carries a petty, childish tone. Every sentence of Dawkins’s big red book seems to end with an implied, “Ha!”, “I told you so!” or “So there!”
Two, there’s something quite appealing about that old time religion. That thing is ... denial. And denial isn’t all that bad.
Seems to me that religion is one way of denying our animal nature, of thinking ourselves beyond our biology and beyond the obvious.
It’s obvious, looking at a dead body and observing the disintegration that follows death, that the human being that was, is no more. But, we imagine something beyond that.
It’s obvious, looking at the way human beings are built, that we cannot fly. But, we imagine something beyond that too.
Both the invention of an imagined afterlife and the invention of human flight began, I believe, with a still moment of “What if?”
Sure, we believe a lot of things that are untrue. Religious nuts and atheistic nuts alike have waged wars and been nuisances at dinner parties as a result of their mad convictions. But this species also routinely makes wild dreams real by the sheer will of that same unreasonable human imagination.
We defy our physiology and demand that we will fly, not only as far and as high and as fast as birds, but all the way to the moon and beyond. We bake cakes, whip cream, pick cherries and imagine that they might all go well together. And, yes, we dream up rain dances and elephant gods and men in the sky who part seas and write books. We cling to them beyond their usefulness too. But, hey, who’s perfect?
So, here’s a thought. More than that, an atheist’s Christmas wish: let’s be less snotty. Let’s do better than “So there!” and “I told you so!” If we think a scientific view of the universe is useful for any reason other than being able to feel superior, then we need to spend less time snuffing dreams out and more time inviting people to dream bigger.
Carl Sagan described our planet as “a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”. There are pictures taken from space of that mote of dust; our mote of dust stranded in a vastness almost completely unknown to us. And to see such a picture is to realise that the idea of an ark filled with all the earth’s animals, two-by-two, for all its human poetry, is just not big enough.
Being such a finite, tiny part of something so infinite is not meaningless. It’s just meaningful in a way larger than religion has ever imagined.
STORY LINK
Also, how hard it is to comprehend there is no end of the universe,(space). It is surely the most awesome thing that I can think about. Even if a God did exist, he/she/it could NOT make an end of time and space. Peace, Roger...A/A
Yeah some atheists are absolute smart asses. I definitely went through that stage. There will always be smart asses on every side of every conflict. The reasonable man says "Let's work this out", the savage says "Might makes right". Guess who gets to pass on their ideas...
Also, how hard it is to comprehend there is no end of the universe,(space). It is surely the most awesome thing that I can think about. Even if a God did exist, he/she/it could NOT make an end of time and space
----
Roger,
You caught my eye with your thoughts here....Okay, so maybe it was both eye's then.
I've OFTEN wondered this same thing throughout my life.
In fact, it was probably the last piece of possible 'god-awe' type evidence to ponder about, that had me holding onto a belief in 'some' form of a god for several years before I turned atheist.
I had read numerous theories that tried to make sense of how space could be thought of as being finite, and while some sounded reasonable on the surface, in the end (no pun intended) I found them all to be greatly lacking.
It seems that space must be infinite, even if the abundance of matter/energy that exists within it, is not.
I felt that this was an incomprehensible mystery and because it was, it lended credence to a god surely being of reality.
While endless space is not really of the supernatural realm per se, it still FELT just as mysterious to me as if it were.
That mystery was enough to make me believe that only 'a' god could create a physical endless something like this.
It's the old thing, of feeling awed by some thing beyond human comprehension and then just assuming 'god-did-it, just as our creationist cite life on earth as being a god-did-it thing.
Ah, but then one day I recalled that my xtian teachings had said that god was everywhere, not to mention, everywhere in any time period as well.
It then dawned on me that if space is really infinite, then god would have to exist throughout all of infinite space and not just somewhat locally, or even just where matter/energy exist.
That means god has to be not only made up of some magical non-universe stuff, but would have to be an INFINITE SIZE as well.
It was hard enough to swallow such a being, as being all-powerful, all-knowing, but now I would have to assume him to be endless in size, just as space must be endless.
Okay, that was just a bit too much to buy into and so what once had been the convincing last factor that told me god existed, now had become the 'last straw' to break the back of my god belief.
Besides the fact that god would have to exist everywhere in all that endless expanse of space, it also means that in relative terms, that this earth and even our own galaxy, is very much like a piece of dust in size, when compared to everything else out there, but especially when compared to infinite space.
Toss in a few 'toppings' that show we are not the center of anything, that we have no central importance to anything outside of this tiny earth and it's solar system, then one has to wonder why if a god exist, why did he locate our planet in some back-woods of an overly large universe.
I mean, the way god chose to make the universe, would be like us using an Atom Bomb to kill a pesky mosquito. The whole concept of what we know about the huge size of the material universe, is surely a severe overkill, if the goal was just to create a place to house his human pets; and other lower life forms.
From a rational point of view, the entire scheme of what god must have planned out to create what we see as the result of that creation, surely means he was not only very wasteful, but nothing in what he created is an indicator that we were more important to him than anything else he created 'out there'
Okay, just thinking out loud here really, but this topic was one that always held a fascination for me.
Alas, the more we learn from astronomy, the less room there is for a 'god' to fit into the facts of the observable universe.
ATF (who thinks xtians keep moving their god further and further from earth, as we keep looking out further and further, far beyond that old belief of a heaven-firmament 'combo')
“Michael stares me down and I know that I’ve crossed the line by suggesting that the Son of God would wear plastic shoes.
“Then he mumbles: ‘There’s nobody more religious than an atheist.’”
Non sequitur; projection, perhaps. It has been my observation that religious people tend to lose their sense of humor astonishingly quickly when you approach their religion. It is written that Jesus was good with children, and was prone to comical exaggerations; these suggest that he had a sense of humor. If anyone crossed a line, it was Michael in suggesting, contemptuously, that an atheist is religious because he jokes about Jesus.
Lev David wrote “So, here’s a thought. More than that, an atheist’s Christmas wish: let’s be less snotty.”
I try not to be snotty, but it gets rather tedious walking on egg shells around hypersensitive religious people all the time. I already fight the temptation to say, “Fuck ’em,” and lay into their stupid ideas; i resist only to avoid becoming friendless. Why are religious beliefs exempt from commentary (although, oddly, not exempt from shooting wars)? Why do many religious people identify so tightly with their often preposterous ideas that they take personally any criticism of those ideas? Why should we have to bend ourselves (over backwards) to accommodate their insecurities? Why is their god such a tight-ass anyway? Even when i was religious, i could not understand this attitude.
My wish would be that hypersensitive religious people grow up. Not a resolution—as i cannot control them—but a wish.
This doesn't mean we have to be really nasty, a la the late Madelyn O'Hair, who would have called even the mildest Methodist or Presbyterian "a religious nut." Sure, extend an olive branch where needed, but when it comes to the Jesus Camp types, we should take no prisoners.